interesting thought experiments

The 15 Most Mind-Blowing Thought Experiments Of All Time

Via medium.com

If you are the type of person who wants clear, solid answers, then thought experiments may drive you a little bit crazy. When considering thought experiments, sometimes you will have to become comfortable with a paradox, where two seemingly contradictory things may be true at the same time. Other times you will end up with a thought experiment that is not solvable because the answer lies beyond human understanding.

No matter the frustrations with these issues, thought experiments are useful to stretch the mind in ways that most people rarely do and geniuses do all the time.

When Albert Einstein was a lowly patent clerk, the job was so easy for him to do. It was so boring that he finished his work quickly each day and then spent the rest of the time staring out the window and considering his thought experiments. This effort led him to a whole new way of seeing the universe, a deeper understanding of the relationship between time and space, and ultimately the creation of his Special Theory of Relativity. He became a renowned genius for his original thinking, which sometimes took many decades for scientific proof to become available that supported his theories.

If you fancy yourself a kind of genius or if you just want to have some fun thinking about strange things; here are fifteen types of thought experiments that are mind-blowing. If you come up with a new unique answer then you may be the next Einstein!

15. The Zen Koan

Via johanjanssen.deviantart.com

Zen is a form of Buddhism. A koan is a type of question or statement that allows you to ponder it and yet it does not have a definitive answer. One of the most famous ones is “If a tree falls in a forest and there is no one there to hear it. Does it make any sound?” If you consider sound as the vibration of air molecules then the tree falling would definitely vibrate the air molecules surrounding it.

However, if you consider a sound more deeply the concept becomes more complex. The sound comes from the interpretation of the vibration of the air molecules that has a vibratory effect on the tiny parts of the ear, the little hairs, the small bones, and the eardrum. This vibration then causes a signal to be sent to the brain, which the brain interprets as a sound. In this analysis of a sound, it requires a participant for the sound to exist.

To further explore the nature of a sound is to consider the question of where exactly is the sound? Is it near the tree, in the surrounding air, in the ear, or in the brain of the person perceiving it? A completely deaf person standing nearby a tree that falls would not hear any sound, although he or she might feel the vibration of the tree as it struck the ground. A sound cannot simply be a vibration because even though a deaf person can feel possibly feel it, they cannot hear it.

14. The Origin Question

Via NPR.org

This is one of the oldest thought experiments that humankind has pondered for ages since the time of Ancient Greece. It is “Which came first, the chicken or the egg?” This question goes far beyond the origin of poultry because it could just as easily be asked about the universe. If the universe was created from the “Big Bang,” where did the singularity that created the Big Bang come from?

The reason why this is so perplexing it that it comes from our experience. We see that something always arises from something else. A chicken must come from an egg. It does not just spontaneously burst into existence. A religious person might say that God created the chicken and every other animal on Earth all at once and out of nothing. A Darwinian scientist would say all living creatures developed from some primordial ooze.

In 2016, R&D magazine reported that a team of scientists led by Craig Venter, Ph.D. were able to create a simple synthetic life form by using DNA created in a test tube, proving that it is possible. Dr. Venter and his colleagues have been working on this technique since 2010. This simple microbe had 473 genes as compared to a human that has over 20,000. This means maybe a bacterium came first before the egg that eventually became a chicken.

Also during 2016, the Financial Times reported that other scientists at Bath University created a viable offspring without needing to fertilize an egg. This means it is possible to have a chicken without first needing the egg. So, we are back to the same dilemma, which came first?

13. Are You Real or a Copy of Yourself?

Via i.ytimg.com

Plutarch from Ancient Greece is noted as the one who first proposed this thought experiment. There was a ship from Theseus. Over many years of use, parts of the ship began to wear out. The people of Athens kept the ship in good repair. As each part wore out, it was replaced by a new part. Over time, all the parts of the ship had been completely replaced. Is this still the ship from Theseus? If all the old parts were found in a junkyard and assembled into a ship would it be the ship of Theseus?

Let’s take this a step further. Over a period of approximately seven years’ time, every cell in the human body has been replaced by a new one serving the same function as the previous one. If every cell in your body is different, are you still the same person?

Imagine there was a transporting device, like the kind featured on “Star Trek,” with one big difference. This transporter does not send your particles from one part of space to another. Instead, it takes the information about your body down to the tiniest, exact detail and makes a copy, including your memory and consciousness. This device builds an exact copy of you at the distant location. Everyone who encounters this new you thinks it is exactly the same as the old you. You also feel the same. In order to do this transportation, the original you is destroyed in the process. Is the new you the same person? If you looked, acted, and felt exactly the same, would you still be you?

12. Could a Monkey Write a Shakespeare Play?

Via shakesdrama.blogspot.com

The infinite monkey theorem is a thought experiment that says, if you had an infinite amount of monkeys that were trained to type on a keyboard, given an infinite length of time, eventually, one of them would type a Shakespeare play by typing at random. In fact, one would type all of Shakespeare’s work. Moreover, many would type copies of any finite work like a Shakespeare play an infinite number of times.

Even though the probability of a monkey typing Shakespeare is extremely low, it is not zero. Given enough time of say, hundreds of trillions of times the age of the universe, a monkey would randomly type Shakespeare. Even if the chance is only one out of a googolplex (this is a number of 1 followed by one hundred zeros), infinity is forever and larger.

There is mathematical proof of this theorem. The probability of two completely independent events occurring at the same time is the combination of the probability of both separate events occurring. For example, if the chance of it raining in one place today is 0.5 and the chance of having an earthquake in another place is 0.000005. Then, the probability of rain in one place combined with an earthquake in the other place is 0.5 times 0.000005, which equals 0.0000025.

If a keyboard has 50 keys, the chance of typing a single letter is one out of fifty. If a monkey is typing at random the chance of typing the word “banana” is (1/50) × (1/50) × (1/50) × (1/50) × (1/50) × (1/50). This equals the chance of one out of 15,625,000,000 for the monkey to type banana. The chance is small, but no matter how small a chance is, if infinite time is applied the chance is never zero.

11. Brain in a Jar

Via Pinterest.com

Before the “Matrix” films, there was a thought experiment called the “brain in a jar” (sometimes called the “brain in a vat”). This experiment removes a human brain and keeps it alive in a jar. The scientist uses a computer to provide electrical/chemical impulses to the neurons of the brain in the jar that simulate what a brain normally experiences while inside a living human body.

If the computer was sophisticated enough to both provide stimulus to the brain in the jar and react to the brain’s activity in the same ways as if it was still inside the skull of a living human being, then the brain, from its perspective, would not be able to tell that it was in a jar and would have experiences that to the brain seem exactly like reality.

This kind of philosophical examination of our definition of reality brings up the possibility that we are all existing in some form of an illusion that we have no true way of knowing whether it is real or not. We may only be able to determine that we are real; however, everything else is our perception of reality and may not have a true independent existence. At least, there is no sure way to prove the independent existence of anything else to ourselves, since our perceptions are all we have available to use.

10. Time Travel Paradox

Via USmagazine.com

If a time machine existed that allowed a person to travel back in time and they used it to go back to kill their own grandfather, how could that person still exist? This is called the grandfather paradox or an alternative version is the Hitler paradox.

In the Hitler Paradox, a person using a time machine to travel back in time to kill Hitler before he rises to power would have then removed the reason that made the time travel necessary, since Hitler would no longer exist.

One way that quantum scientists used to explain how to avoid the time travel paradox is by using an infinite number of multiple universes. Gong back in time and killing your own grandfather would only kill him in a parallel universe that is identical to the one you come from, with the sole exception that there is no grandfather and therefore no you in it. By the way, the photo is Hitler as a baby. If you could go back in time, would you be able to kill a baby who was at that time just an innocent child?

9. As Above, So Below

Via alphacoders.com

The very largest things in the universe, called the “macrocosm”, are very similar to the very small, called the “microcosm.” This idea was first proposed by Hermes Trismegistus. The macrocosm is the universe. The microcosm is oneself. As the microcosm compares to something larger, it also becomes the macrocosm to something smaller. From the level of atomic particles, a person is a macrocosm.

Scientists, who study particle physicists, continue to look for the fundamental building blocks of the universe. Until the splitting of the atom was possible, it was assumed that the atom was the smallest unit of the universe. After the atom was split, so many new particles were discovered. In contemporary times, the large Hadron collider in Switzerland continues to find new particles of smaller sizes and with different configurations. The tiniest building blocks of the universe have yet to be discovered and perhaps they do not even exist, if everything can be both infinitely small and infinitely large at the same time.

8. Holographic Universe and Fractals

Via Pininterest.com

Related to the “As Above, So Below” thought experiment, is the idea of a holographic universe. The thought experiment about the holographic universe notes that everything in the universe is contained and replicated on a different scale in any smaller piece of it. Just like each part of a laser-made hologram contains the entire image, the holographic universe theorem says that everything is simply a fully contained copy of everything else. The only difference is scale.

Another way to think about this is the idea of fractals. Fractals are mathematical expressions that repeat themselves based on simple rules. As you zoom in on a fractal you see the same pattern repeated, just the same as if you zoom out. The pattern is the same no matter what scale is used. A thought experiment from fractal mathematics is that it is impossible to measure a coastline with 100% accuracy. As the scale of measurement becomes smaller, the edges of the coastline become more varied, thereby increasing its overall length. The only way to measure a coastline is by using an approximation at a certain scale.

7. Unexpected Hanging Paradox

Via wolframmathworld

In this thought experiment, a prisoner on death row is told he will be hanged one day next week between Monday and Friday and he will not know the day of the hanging in advance. This means that he cannot be hanged on Friday because if he is alive on Thursday he will know in advance of his hanging on Friday, which is the last day of the week it is possible for the hanging.

He cannot be hanged on Thursday because if he is alive on Wednesday he will know that since he cannot be hanged on Friday, he will be hanged on Thursday. Since he cannot know this in advance Thursday is also not a day he can be hanged.

This same logic continues to show he cannot be hanged on any day because he will know in advance when he will be hanged. This even applies to Monday because if all the other days are not possible then Monday is the only possible day, and if Monday is the only day left he knows he will be hanged on that day in advance.

The prisoner feels confident in his logic and knows there is no day of the week that is possible for him to be hanged. Monday comes and he is not hanged; however on Wednesday at noon, to his surprise, he is hanged.

6. Time Dilation

Via Study.com

In Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity, he predicted the phenomena of time dilation. Time dilation is an effect on time as one accelerates to move closer to the speed of light. More time passes for something moving at a slower speed than for something moving at higher speeds. There is also a gravitational effect on time. Things move slower for those closer to a gravitational force like the Earth compared to those further away from the gravitational force.

The strange thing about this phenomena is that Einstein imagined that “time was relative” before there was any way to prove it.

In Einstein’s famous scientific paper that he published on special relativity during 1905, he concluded that when two synchronized clocks that keep perfect time were used and one was taken away from Earth and then brought back, the one that stayed on Earth would have moved at a faster rate of speed and the one brought back would be lagging behind in time.

Decades later, this theory was tested using atomic clocks, which are extremely accurate and the theory was proven correct. One clock stayed on Earth and the other was taken into orbit around the Earth. The one that returned was slightly behind in time when compared to the one that remained on Earth. Einstein’s theory has been proven many times. Atomic clocks on satellites run slightly slower than the same atomic clocks on Earth, so they have to be adjusted for the difference.

5. Runaway Trolley Dilemma

Via Business Insider

In this thought experiment, developed by Philippa Foot in 1967, you come across a set of train tracks. On one set of tracks that the runaway trolley is going down there are five people tied to the tracks who are unable to move. On another set of connected side-tracks, there is one person tied to the tracks. A fast trolley is approaching. It is going too fast to stop in time. There is a switch that will divert the trolley onto one set of tracks or the other. There is no time to do anything but either throw the switch or do nothing. What do you do?

Do you let the trolley kill the five people or do you throw the switch to kill only one to save the five others? What if the one person tied to the tracks alone is your own child?

Another variant has a fat man standing nearby who is large enough to stop the trolley before it hits the five people. Do you push the fat man into the way to save the five that are tied to the tracks? Surprisingly, most would pull the switch to save a net of five of the six lives, but few would push the fat man onto the tracks to save four others. There is a perceived moral difference between the two acts, even though the net number of deaths is the same. However, this decision is reversed if the fat man is the villain who is responsible for tying the people to the tracks.

4. Deterministic Universe

It the theory of the deterministic universe everything has a cause and an effect. There is nothing that happens without a related cause that creates it. Another way to think about this is the idea of fate or karma. Fate is something that happens, which cannot be prevented by the person it happens to. Karma is the effect from something done in the past, Buddhists believe in reincarnation, so for them, karma can last for more than a single lifetime.

From a Buddhist point of view, this explains what bad things happen to seemingly good people or innocent children. They may not have done anything to deserve the bad consequences in this particular life, but they must have done something bad in a past life to bring the bad karma in this life.

A deterministic universe contradicts with the idea of free will. If fate is pre-determined then there is no such thing as making any choice. Choices are just an illusion, which brings the person to the same end result, no matter what they do.

3. Allegory of the Cave

Via SteveSanders.online

This was a thought experiment developed by the Greek philosopher Plato and presented in Plato’s work as a conversation between Plato’s brother and his mentor Socrates. In this thought experiment, Plato has Socrates explain that some people have lived all their lives in a cave held in place by chains and facing a blank wall. They watch the shadows on the wall of things passing by the front of a fire, which is behind them. They create names for the shadows. Some of the shadows’ appear at the same time as when they get water and food. For them, the shadows are the reality. They do not even have a desire to leave the cave because they have not known any other way of life.

In the dialogue written by Plato, Socrates says that a philosopher is like a person freed from the cave. The philosopher sees the true nature of reality, not the manufactured reality of the shadows that are thought to be the reality by those held in the cave.

2. Flatland

Via panoramio.com

Similar to the allegory of the cave is the thought experiment of Flatland. Flatland was a satirical novel written by an English school teacher named Edwin Abbott. In Flatland, everyone lives in two dimensions. The leader of Flatland is a Square. The Square tries to convince the King of the one-dimensional Lineland, which is a group of lustrous dots, that there is more than one dimension. The King tries to kill the Square rather than listen to what he considers nonsense. The Square escapes back to Flatland.

When a three-dimensional object passes through Flatland, the Sphere, it first appears in Flatland as a dot, then changes into a circle, which widens and then shrinks back from a circle to a dot and then disappears. This leads the Square to discover the third-dimension of Spaceland, which he visits.

The Square has dreams of other dimensions, including Pointland, which is a single dot who believes there is nothing in the universe except him. The Square also dreams of higher dimensions and he tells the Sphere and others in Spaceland about his dreams. He is forced to return to Flatland when he is thrown out of Spaceland for trying to spread his crazy ideas about other dimensions.

In Flatland, he is imprisoned for his heretical beliefs. After seven years in prison, the Square writes a book of his memoirs and experiences in other dimensions hoping those in future generations will read it and be able to see beyond their two-dimensional existence.

1. Schrödinger’s Cat

This is one of the most famous thought experiments in physics invented during 1935 by the Austrian physicist Erwin Schrödinger as his argument against the theory of Quantum Superposition that was proposed by other scientists at that time.

Quantum Superposition theory states that at a quantum level, a particle may be in an undetermined state that is sort of in-between states of existence, which collapses into a certain state only upon being observed.

Schrödinger thought this Quantum Superposition proposition was ridiculous and used his cat thought experiment to demonstrate his reasoning.

In the Schrödinger’s Cat thought experiment, you think of putting a cat in a sealed box along with a vial that contains a tiny bit of radioactive material that has a 50% chance of decaying within one hour’s time. Also, you put a Geiger counter in the box that is connected to a hammer and a vial of poison gas. If the Geiger counter detects radioactive decay, then the hammer falls, breaking the glass vial with the poison gas and the cat is killed. Regardless of the macabre nature of this thought experiment, there is no way to know if the cat is dead or alive without opening the box.

Under the Quantum Superposition theory, the cat would be in an undetermined state of dead/alive or alive/dead until the researcher opened the box after one hour had passed. This is what Schrödinger thought was absurd. Clearly, the cat is either dead or alive and because the poison gas kills almost instantly. The cat is never in a state of both being dead and alive at the same time.

Schrödinger’s logic is correct for larger objects such as a cat; however, he was dead wrong when it comes to actions of particles at a quantum level. Research since then has shown quantum particles have the ability to fade in and out of states of reality and simultaneously maintain the probabilistic state of two contrary conditions at the same time until an observation is made.

The observation causes the quantum field to collapse and the state of the particle can then be determined by the researchers. In spite of Schrödinger’s skepticism, quantum research is uncovering strange and unusual things happening at a quantum level, which do not exist in larger forms. Luckily, no cats had to be killed to prove this.

Sources: alternativephysics.org , rdmag.com , ft.com , iflscience.com

• Ad Free Browsing
• Over 10,000 Videos!
• All in 1 Access
• Join For Free!

... but it costs a lot of money to get that done. Please support TheClever so we can continue providing you with great content!

Please whitelist TheClever or disable your ad blocker to continue. Close this popup and browse for 2 minutes.

Please whitelist TheClever or disable your ad blocker to continue.

ThePremium offers ad free access to all TheClever content and so much more!

9 Philosophical Thought Experiments You Should Know About

Thought experiments are imaginative devices that can help us better understand philosophy. They are a useful tool in education and entertainment and can be a great way to apply complex concepts to practical situations. Since philosophy looks at questions about life, you can make a thought experiment for nearly any philosophical idea. Learn about some of the most popular ones commonly used in philosophical discussions.

The Trolly Problem

The trolly problem is an ethical thought experiment. It first appeared in philosopher Philippa Foot's 1967 paper, "Abortion and the Doctrine of Double Effect." To start off the thought experiment, imagine you have control of a railway switch. There is an out-of-control trolley headed your way. Up ahead, the tracks of the railway branch into two different paths. On the first track, there is a group of five people; on the other track, there is one person. If you stand, watch, and do nothing, the trolley will head down the first track and kill five people. However, your control allows you to switch the path of the trolley. This way, it heads down track two and kills one person instead of five. The dilemma in this situation is whether or not to flip the switch. A utilitarian answer would be to flip the switch and kill one instead of five.

Selective Surgery

Imagine you are a doctor in the future, and an ill patient comes into your practice. The patient's symptoms lead you to the diagnosis that their heart is failing. Without treatment, the patient is going to die. In your office, the patient passes out. Fortunately, the patient can be saved with surgery that will give them a synthetic heart. The patient can live what you consider to be a good life after this surgery. However, as you are preparing the patient for surgery, a small card falls out of their pocket. The card says for religious reasons; the patient does not want any synthetic organs. Now you must make a decision. If you do not install the heart, the patient will die. However, if you install the heart, the patient will survive at the cost of you violating their wish to have no synthetic organs.

At the heart of this thought experiment is a choice between honoring someone's individual rights and honoring an outside moral code . This is a relevant topic today in bioethics. Philosophers who advocate strongly for personal rights would argue that doing the transplant is wrong. While philosopher John Locke wasn't exposed to this thought experiment, he is someone who expressed the importance of individual rights and consent. According to Locke, individual consent is a fundamental part of creating a political society. In his view, doing the transplant on an unconsenting individual would be wrong.

The Bad Father

A thought experiment that tests loyalty against ethical principles is the bad father. In the thought experiment, there is a son who holds honesty as the highest value. However, his father is not an honest man. One day, his son catches him stealing from a local farmer. In this situation, the son must make a choice. He could turn his father in for breaking the law and stealing. Or the son might feel an ethical obligation to keep silent about his father's crime. While you might find this question silly, ask yourself the implications this scenario has on a larger scale. Would it be better for children to stay loyal and protect their parents or better for them to alert the authorities when their parents stray from the law?

This thought experiment is a variation of the thought experiments proposed by the ancient Greek philosopher Plato. He wrote a dialogue called Euthyphro, where Euthyphro takes his father, Socrates, to court. Euthypro argues taking his father to court is the right thing to do and the pious thing to do. However, Socrates disagrees with Euthypro about his impiety charges and gets into a debate with Euthypro about philosophical questions of universal justice, goodness, and piety. At the core of the philosophical thought experiment is the question of what happens when there is a conflict between our personal lives and the impersonal tenets we believe justice demands. The thought experiment brings old philosophical questions about justice to life.

Prisoners Dilemma

The prisoner's dilemma is a game that was created as a model of human cooperation. The experiment shows how people choose to cooperate or how they don't. The mathematician Albert Tucker is credited with formalizing the thought experiment. Today, a wide array of disciplines use the thought experiment, including philosophy, psychology, economics, and political theory.

For the experiment, imagine a cop arrests both Chris and Cindy for robbing a bank. They are in separate cells where they cannot communicate. Both want to be free and care more about their personal freedom than the freedom of their accomplice. A clever prosecutor will use their desire for freedom to his or her advantage. The prosecutor will tell each person separately that if they confess and their accomplice remains silent, they will drop all charges against them and their testimony to ensure their accomplice does serious time. If they both confess, the prosecutor will ensure they both get early parole. If they both remain silent, they will have to settle for sentences on firearms possession charges. The dilemma for the prisoners is that if they both confess, the outcome is worse than it would have been if they had both remained silent.

The prisoner's dilemma compares individual and group rationality. It shows there can be conflict between individual and collective interests. Conclusions drawn from the Prisoner's Dilemma have been used in modern-day philosophical discussions about arms races and the use of limited natural resources.

The Chinese Room

A thought experiment about artificial intelligence is the Chinese room, designed by philosopher John Searle. He asks us to imagine a situation where someone who only knows the English language is sitting alone in a room. They have instructions for changing rows of Chinese letters. Anyone outside the room would think the person inside the room understood Chinese since they would see them sorting through Chinese characters. However, this is not the case. The person inside the room just understands the instructions. Searle made this thought experiment to show that artificial intelligence cannot have a human-like mind. His thought experiment stresses that while there is understanding, there is not comprehension. 

The Experience Machine

A thought experiment that will make you question the value behind experience, is Robert Nozick's Experience Machine. The experiment is from his book Anarchy State and Utopia . Imagine that there is a machine that will give you any experience you desire. You could enter the machine and have an experience that you were eating the world's best cookie or that you were an astronaut. While you are in the experience machine, you are floating in a tank with electrodes attached to your brain. The question here is if you should plug into this machine to preprogram your life experiences. While in the tank, you wouldn't know that you were in the tank, making the experience even more real. The thought experiment brings questions about the meaning of life. What is the purpose of life if we are plugging into a machine? Will plugging into a machine satisfy all of our desires?

The Ship of Theseus

The Ship of Theseus is a thought experiment that questions whether an object that has all of its components replaced or rearranged is in fact the original object. This paradox was recorded by Plutarch, Theseus, who asks if a ship that was fully restored and replaced completely, down to every single wooden part, was the same ship. Later, other philosophers expanded on this idea. Thomas Hobbes asked if the original planks of the first ship were entirely replaced and then the original planks were used to build another ship, if the second ship would be the original ship. The thought experiment asks questions about what the essence of an object is. The Greek philosopher Heraclitus attempted to solve this paradox. To do this, Heraclitus thought of a river that has water replenishing it. According to Heraclitus, this is the same river. However, Plutarch disagreed and claimed the nature of a river to scatter and then come together means you never step into the same river twice.

Original Position

Ever thought the system was unfair? The original position is a thought experiment centering around achieving a better form of justice. Developed by John Rawls, the thought experiment asks us to imagine that we are in a situation where we do not know our actual life. This way, we are behind what Rawls calls a veil of ignorance. This veil prevents us from knowing the political or economic system that we live under and the laws that are in place.  From this position, we are then asked, with a group of other people behind the veil of ignorance, to look at a list of classic forms of justice. We must draw conclusions from different social and political philosophies. Then, we have to choose a system of justice that we believe would be best for everyone under this veil. This thought experiment calls us to question our beliefs about justice. It forces us to confront the flaws of our political and economic systems.

The Beetle in the Box

The Beetle in The Box thought experiment is also known as the Private Language Argument. Philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein developed the thought experiment to challenge the way we look at introspection and how it informs the language we use. The thought experiment starts by imagining a group of individuals, each holding a box. The boxes contain what each individual calls their beetle. Nobody can see into anyone else's box. Everyone describes their beetle to each other. However, each person only sees and knows their own beetle. According to Wittgenstein, the descriptions are unimportant. This is because, over time, the individuals would understand the word beetle as the thing in a person's box. While the thought experiment might sound silly, it makes the comparison that human minds are like a beetle. We can never know what is in another individual's mind.

Why Use Thought Experiments?

Thought experiments help us explore philosophical concepts in a more practical way. For example, the trolly problem forces us to confront how we would apply our ethics in a situation. The point of thought experiments isn't to arrive at a specific answer. Instead, thought experiments force us to reason through our ideas and give us insight into solving complex questions. When you come up with an answer to a thought experiment, why you arrived at your answer is just as important as the answer itself.

More in Society

The Largest Standing Armies of the European Union

The Most Influential Islamic Philosophers

Countries With The Most Stripped Olympic Medals

How Long Are the Olympics?

Countries With The Most Military Aircraft

How Many Olympics Have There Been?

How Often Are The Olympics?

The Largest Ethnic Groups In Syria

Adarsh Badri

• International Affairs
• Politics and Society
• The How-To Guide
• Book Review
• A Day in Life
• Fuzzy Notes

15 Philosophical Thought Experiments That Will Definitely Blow Your Mind

• April 19, 2023 July 30, 2024

Philosophical thought experiments are hypothetical situations that are intended to help with the exploration of complex philosophical concepts and issues. These hypothetical situations frequently put our presumptions to the test, stimulate our curiosity, and highlight the boundaries of our understanding.

Philosophical thought experiments, which have been a crucial component of philosophical research for millennia and are still relevant and thought-provoking today, ranging from Plato’s Cave to the Trolley Problem.

This blog examines  15 of the most intriguing and perplexing philosophical thought experiments , which will test your understanding of reality and pique your interest in philosophy.

Table of Contents

1. THE SHIP OF THESEUS

If a ship’s parts are to be replaced over time, is it still the same ship.

The Ship of Theseus , one of the well-known philosophical thought experiments, raises questions about the nature of identity and continuity over time. In the paradox, the question is whether a ship that has had all its components replaced throughout time is still the same.

On the one hand, asserting that the ship has not altered despite having some of its components replaced would make sense. After all, we still call it by that name, and the structure and goals it was intended for are still in place.

On the other hand, if the ship’s identity is based on its physical attributes, it would appear that the ship has changed. One can argue that the ship is now a totally distinct entity if every component is replaced.

This paradox highlights issues regarding the nature of identity and change , which have consequences beyond the context of ships.

It makes us wonder if something can endure significant change while remaining essentially the same throughout time and how we can tell when something has altered fundamentally enough to be the same thing no longer.

2. THE TROLLEY PROBLEM

Would you sacrifice one person to save many people.

The Trolley Problem is a famous ethical thought experiment that challenges the ethics of sacrificing one life to save many others. Typically, the hypothetical situation is as follows:

You’re standing next to a tram track, watching as a runaway tram approaches five people who are chained to the track and unable to escape. However, if you notice a nearby lever, the tram would be diverted onto a different track, killing the person connected to that track in its place. What do you do?

This puzzle challenges us to think about our moral responsibilities when we have the authority to make a choice that will cause someone’s death. The alternative that saves the most lives may appear logical. Still, it’s vital to consider the worth of each life and whether we have a responsibility to defend the rights of the minority.

The “right” decision may differ according to two central ethical doctrines. A consequentialist, for instance, would save the lives of the five people would be the ethically correct choice since it maximises total well-being.

On the other hand, a deontologist could contend that we have a responsibility to defend people’s rights and that doing so would be against the law.

The Trolley Problem has no apparent solution, yet it is a helpful tool for investigating ethical quandaries and the ideas that influence human decision-making .

3. ALLEGORY OF THE CAVE

Are we merely seeing the shadows of reality or the reality itself.

Plato’s “Allegory of the Cave” is one of the well-known philosophical thought experiments concerning the nature of reality and knowing/knowledge. The allegory is as follows:

I magine a group of people who have spent their entire lives chained up and facing a wall within a cave. They can only see the shadows of things that the fire behind them has cast onto the wall. They believe that these shadows are the only reality that exists.

If one of the prisoners were forced to turn around and face the fire, then that prisoner would experience a new reality and realise that the shadows were mere illusions. Let’s say that the prisoner is now allowed to leave the cave and come in contact with the real world outside. When they encounter the outside world, they would have come across another reality different from the cave and the fire.

Plato’s allegory makes us wonder if our perceptions of reality are accurate or only reflections of a more profound, underlying truth.

It implies that there might be truths that go beyond our current comprehension and that our opinions and knowledge may be constrained by the situations in which we find ourselves. Many consider Plato’s Cave a defence of philosophical inquiry and the quest for knowledge. It implies that we might be able to learn more about ourselves and the world around us by challenging our presumptions and looking for the essence of truth .

4. THE CHINESE ROOM

Can a machine understand or mimic language.

In The Chinese Room thought experiment, the question of whether a machine can genuinely understand language or merely mimic it. This experiment is as follows.

A non-Chinese-speaking person is locked in a room with a book filled with Chinese symbols and a set of instructions for manipulating the symbols.

A person from outside passes a note to him written in Chinese. The person inside the room responds to the note as per the regulations before passing the note back to the person outside.

It may appear that the person inside the room may understand Chinese to the person receiving the note outside. However, the individual within the room only follows instructions; they do not genuinely understand the significance of the messages they are responding to.

This experiment presents an interesting understanding of the nature of consciousness, artificial intelligence, and whether a machine can truly “understand” language like a human can.

It makes us wonder if knowledge and intellect come from simply adhering to rules and manipulating symbols or if something deeper in human consciousness enables us to comprehend language .

5. BURIDN’S ASS

Are we really free to choose.

This experiment is quite interesting. Buridan’s Ass illustrates the paradox in the concept of free will. It refers to a situation where a donkey (equally hungry and equally thirsty) is placed at the centre of a stack of hay and a pail of water. Both of them are equidistant from the donkey. Which one does it choose first?

The paradox claims that since the donkey cannot choose between water or hay, it dies of hunger. There are other versions of this story. Instead of water and hay, two equally sized pile of hay is placed at equidistant from the donkey instead of water and hay. The result: the donkey dies.

But is it as simple as that? Probably not. The donkey may eat first and drink later. Or drink first and eat later, and then drink again.

But these are just random—as it does not require us to be rational. We just need common sense.

While this paradox has been attributed to a 14 th -century French philosopher Jean Buridan, the traces of Buridan’s Ass paradox are found in the Aristotelian era.

In On the Heavens (295-350 BCE), Aristotle writes: “…a man, being just as hungry as thirsty, and placed between food and drink, must necessarily remain where he is and starve to death”.

6. THE EXPERIENCE MACHINE

Would you plug into a machine that gives a perfect life simulation, not real experiences.

This philosophical thought experiments is as follows: Imagine there exists a machine that can simulate perfect life experiences, where one can feel and experience anything they desire without suffering any consequences.

They couldn’t tell the difference between the simulation and the real world since this ideal life simulation would be so believable. Then, this experiment asks whether you would plug into this machine and spend the rest of your life in the virtual world.

There are two schools of thought on it. Some argue that since the machine allows people to feel happiness and pleasure without negative consequences, they would plug into it. For them, regardless of whether an experience is real or not, it is the experience that counts.

Others contend that true experiences give life meaning and that sustaining in the virtual world would ultimately cause dissatisfaction.

The experience machine experience poses significant questions concerning the origins of pleasure, happiness, and the worth of genuine experiences.

It prompts us to wonder if we could forgo our actual experiences in favour of the appearance of joy and pleasure and whether such a sacrifice would eventually be worthwhile.

7. THE PRISONER’S DILEMMA

Should you cooperate or defect in a situation where your decision affects others and vice versa.

The Prisoner’s Dilemma is a popular game theory scenario that explores how to strike a balance between self-interest and collaboration. The process is as follows:

Imagine that you and another person are both under investigation for a crime. You are both detained in separate jail cells and cannot communicate with one another.

The prosecution makes the same deal to both of you: in exchange for your cooperation and silence, you will both receive a reduced sentence.

However, if one of you betrays the other and comes forward with a confession while the other refuses to speak, the betrayer will get a reduced sentence while the other gets a harsher one. You will both receive reduced sentences if you both confess.

The dilemma is that it is reasonable to betray the other person regardless of what they do from a purely self-interested perspective. If the other party doesn’t say anything, confessing will guarantee a less penalty.

If the other party admits, admitting will, at the very least, result in a mild penalty, preferable to a harsher one.

However, instead of the lighter sentences, they would have received if they had cooperated, they each receive moderate punishments if both parties betray one another.

The Prisoner’s Dilemma experiment poses significant issues regarding the harmony of self-interest and collaboration .

It makes us wonder if cooperation is always the right course of action, even when it seems counter to our self-interest, and if betraying people ultimately serves our best interests.

8. THE SORITES PARADOX

At what point does a small change in quantity lead to a change in quality.

The Sorites Paradox is one of the philosophical thought experiments which ventures into the nature of limits and how we define them. Here is how it follows:

Imagine a mound of sand with a million grains in it. The pile of sand is unaffected by the removal of even one grain. Even if another grain is removed, it remains a sand pile.

This cycle continues until only a few sand grains are left. When does a sand mound stop becoming a pile? In other words, when does a small change in quantity cause a big difference in quality?

It poses significant issues regarding how we classify things, happenings, and experiences and if there is a definite line dividing one category from another. It also has ramifications for comprehending our decision-making processes and how we view the world.

The Sorites Paradox can be applied to other aspects of life, such as moral judgements, political categorisation, and scientific classification, and is not just applicable to sand or tangible objects.

The paradox forces us to reflect on the limitations of language and how the categories we employ to make sense of the world affect how we see it .

9. THE OMNIPOTENCE PARADOX

Can an all-powerful create a task it cannot complete.

The “Omnipotence Paradox” is one of the philosophical thought experiments that challenge the idea of omnipotence, or that a being has limitless power. The philosophical thought experiment is as follows:

Is it possible for an all-powerful deity to create a task that it cannot complete? Even if it can come up with such a task, it is not all-powerful because it cannot do it. If it cannot create such a work, it is limited by its incapacity and thus is not all-powerful.

The Omnipotence Paradox poses significant questions regarding the scope of power and the nature of omnipotence. It questions whether a being can have endless power and makes us wonder if the idea of unlimited power is fundamentally paradoxical.

It also has ramifications for comprehending the characteristics of divine beings and the limits of human understanding of religious concepts .

10. PARFIT’S SPLIT-BRAIN

How do we define and measure consciousness, and how does it relate to our senses of self.

Parfit’s Split Brain, another such philosophical thought experiments, explores the ideas of individual identity and consciousness in the context of split-brain patients. The steps are as follows:

Imagine a person having a surgical procedure where the left and right hemispheres of their brain are surgically separated from one another.

Then, a distinct visual stimulus—such as an image or word—is presented to each hemisphere. Each hemisphere controls the opposing side of the body; therefore, when asked to describe what they observed, the subject can only use one hand.

Parfit’s Split Brain raises questions regarding the basis of personal identity and consciousness. Which of the two brain regions best represents the true self when exposed to numerous stimuli and reacting in varied ways?

Do they have two separate selves, or are they still just one person with two minds? How is consciousness measured, how is it defined, and how is consciousness related to our sense of self?

The Split Brain experiment has implications for patients who undergo split-brain surgery for medical reasons. It also has broader implications for understanding identity, consciousness, and the relationship between the brain and the self .

The experiment fascinates people today and has been the subject of extensive philosophical and scientific study.

11. THE SWAMP MAN

What constitutes a person’s identity.

The Swamp Man is a philosophical thought experiment exploring personal identity and what constitutes an individual’s identity. The instructions are as follows:

Imagine a person hiking in a remote swamp when a tree is struck by lightning, killing him instantaneously. At the same time, a bolt of lightning strikes a marsh, completely recreating the man’s physique down to the last molecule.

This copy, which did not exist before the lightning struck, holds the man’s memories and beliefs. Is this new being still the same person as the original person, or is it a completely different entity?

The Swamp Man experiment challenges our conceptions of what defines a human. It makes one wonder whether bodily continuity, memory, and consciousness are crucial components of personal identity.

It also makes us ponder if identity is a concept that outside forces can determine or whether it results from our own experiences and self-awareness.

12. THE UTILITY MONSTER

Should the happiness of one individual outweigh the happiness of many.

The Utility Monster is one of the philosophical thought experiments that explore the utility and how it relates to moral judgement. The procedure is as follows:

Imagine a being, let’s call it a Utility Monster, significantly more capable of experiencing joy and happiness than any other living creature. The Utility Monster enjoys and is happier than any other being at any given time.

According to utilitarianism, a moral theory that believes that deeds are ethically correct to the degree that they maximise overall happiness or “utility,” the Utility Monster’s preferences should be given more weight than those of other beings.

This implies that it would be morally acceptable to grant the Utility Monster’s wishes, even if doing so might harm others.

The Utility Monster experiment highlights concerns about the influence of personal preferences on moral consequences and tests our grasp of how to make ethical decisions.

It also draws attention to the dangers of a strictly utilitarian view of morality, which could lead to sacrificing many people’s well-being for the advantage of a select few.

The Utility Monster thought experiment explores the limitations and potential flaws of utilitarianism . This moral theory maintains that actions are morally acceptable to the extent that they maximise overall happiness or “utility.”

The experiment questions the idea that maximising overall happiness is always morally right by introducing the idea of a being that enjoys significantly more pleasure and satisfaction from any given experience than any other being does.

The Utility Monster experiment significantly impacts ethical theory because it forces us to consider how much personal preferences and rights factor into moral judgements.

It also raises the question of how we strike a moral balance between the interests of various individuals and social groups and whether such a balance can be reached.

Overall, the Utility Monster experiment is an intriguing and stimulating illustration of how philosophical thought exercises can upend our presumptions and encourage us to consider fundamental issues regarding the nature of morality and ethical judgement.

13. THE VEIL OF IGNORANCE

Would you create a fair society if you did not know your place in it.

This is my favourite!

The Veil of Ignorance is another philosophical thought experiment that invites participants to see themselves in an initial position of equality behind a veil of ignorance, not knowing their social status, abilities, or place in society.

Philosopher John Rawls proposed it.

This exercise aims to get people to consider the principles of justice that would be applied in this case without considering their own interests or social standing.

Behind the curtain of ignorance, people would choose justifications that would be advantageous to all, irrespective of their particular circumstances, thus establishing a “fair society” .

14. THE PROBLEM OF EVIL

If god is all-powerful and all-good, why does evil exist in the world.

The Problem of Evil conundrum poses the question of how to reconcile the existence of evil and suffering in the universe with the belief in an all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-good God.

It is stated that if God is all-powerful and all-knowing, they can prevent or stop evil and suffering; if God is all-good, they would prefer to do so.

If God is all-knowing, then they is aware of all the evil and suffering in the world. Therefore, it would seem that the existence of evil and suffering cannot coexist with the existence of an all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-good God.

There has been a lot of debate and discussion around the concept of evil in theology and philosophy.

15. MARY’S ROOM

Is there more to conscious experience than just physical processes in the brain.

Philosopher Frank Jackson propounded Mary’s Room to refute the physicalist theory of the mind-brain connection. The experiment is as follows:

Mary, a talented scientist, has lived her entire life in a room with a TV monitor in black and white. She knows everything there is to know about colour vision, but she has never seen colours.

After being let out of the room one day, she notices a red apple. Despite never having experienced colour vision firsthand, the question is whether Mary learns anything new about what it’s like to see red or if she already knew everything there was to know about it.

In the thought experiment, Mary already knows all the physical details of colour; therefore, whether she discovers anything new when she sees it for the first time.

If she does pick up new information, it implies that physicalism is not a comprehensive account of the mind-brain interaction and that conscious experience involves more than just the physical functioning of the brain.

If she doesn’t discover anything new, physicalism may be true, and all our experiences can be described in terms of physical processes.

You May Like These Essays:

We Have Always Been in “Polycrisis”— And Now We Know It!

If a Tree Falls in the Forest, and There’s No One Around to Hear It, Does It Make a Sound?

#Notes on Akeel Bilgrami’s Provocative Essay “Toward the Definition of ‘Identity’”

Show some love:

What do you think of the above post cancel reply.

0, text: error()">

0, text: error(), css: errorCssClass">

Reset your password

Enter your email address or username and we’ll send you a link to reset your password

Check your inbox

An email with a link to reset your password was sent to the email address associated with your account

Provide email

Please enter your email to complete registration

Activate to continue

Your account isn't active yet. We've emailed you an activation link. Please check your inbox and click the link to activate your account

0, text: error" style="display: none;">

0, text: success" style="display: none;">

• Relationships

The Bored Panda iOS app is live! Fight boredom with iPhones and iPads here .

• Partnership
• Success stories
• --> -->